Inquiry-based history instruction is rare in most school settings, but particularly in classes of students who are perceived to be “low achieving.” Students with low reading abilities or test scores typically receive instruction focused on rote recall of historical information. Teachers and students face great obstacles in inquiry based learning, so often teachers fail to attempt complex instruction with students they perceive will struggle. This paper explores a collaborative community of practice involving classroom teachers and teacher educators, working to implement problem based historical inquiry with a class of students perceived to be “low-achieving”. Though not generalizable, this paper suggests effective collaboration may encourage the development of professional teaching knowledge that motivates and supports novice teachers in providing all students opportunities to engage in issues-centered history instruction.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BartonK. C. & LevstikL.S. (2004). Teaching history for the common good. Mahweh, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
2.
CohenE.G. (1992). Restructuring the classroom: conditions for productive small groups. Issues in restructuring schools, April (2) p. 4-7.
3.
DeweyJ. (1933). How we think. New York: D.C. Heath.
4.
EngleS. H. & OchoaA.S. (1988). Educating citizens for democracy: Decision-making in social studies. New York: Teachers College Press.
5.
GamoranA. N. & NystrandM. (1992). Taking students seriously. In NewmannF. N. (Ed) , Student engagement and achievement in American secondary schools.
6.
GoetzJ. & LeComopteM. (1984). Ethnography and qualitative design in education research. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
7.
GoodladJ. (1984). A place called school: Prospects for the future. New York: McGraw-Hill.
8.
GubaE.&Lincoln, Y. (1989) Fourth Generation Evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
9.
HiebertJ.GallimoreR.&Stigler, J.W. (2002). A knowledge base for the teaching profession: What would it look like and how can we get one? Educational Researcher, 31(5), 3-15.
10.
HuntM. P. & MetcalfL.E. (1955). Teaching high school social studies: Problems in reflective thinking and social understanding. New York: Harper & Row.
11.
KingP. M. & KitchenerK.S. (1994). Developing reflective judgment: Understanding and promoting intellectual growth and critical thinking in adolescents and adults. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
12.
KuhnD. (1999). A developmental model of critical thinking. Educational Researcher, 28(2), 16-26,46.
13.
LemingJ. S. (1994). Why social studies teachers can' t teach Johnny/Susan to think: An epistemmic development perspective. Paper presented at the National Council for the Social Studies Conference, Phoenix, Arizona.
14.
MerryfieldM.M. (1998). Pedagogy for global perspectives in education: Studies of teachers’ thinking and practice. Theory and Research in Social Education26(3), 342-379.
15.
MetzM. H. (1978). Classrooms and corridors: The crisis of authority in desegregated schools. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
16.
NewmannF.M. (1991). Higher order thinking in the teaching of social studies: Connections between theory and practice. In VossJ. , PerkinsD., & SegalJ. (Eds.), Informal reasoning and education (pp. 381 -400).
17.
NewmannF. N. & OliverJ.P. (1970). Clarifying public controversy: An approach to social studies. Boston: Little, Brown and Co.
18.
OakesJ.GamoranA.&Page, R.N. (1992). Curriculum differentiation: Opportunities, outcomes and meanings. In JacksonP. W. (Ed.) , Handbook of research on curriculum (pp. 570-608). New York: Macmillan.
19.
OliverD. W. & ShaverJ.P. (1966). Teaching public issues in high school. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
20.
OnoskoJ. J. (1991). Barriers to the promotion of higher order thinking in social studies. Theory and Research in Social Education, 19(4), 341-367.
21.
OnoskoJ.J. & SwensonL. (1996). Designing issue-based unit plans. In EvansR. W. (Ed) & SaxeD. W. (Ed.), Handbook on teaching social issues. (pp. 380- 386). Washington, DC: NCSS.
22.
ParkerW.D.MuellerM. & WendlingL. (1989). Critical reasoning on civic issues. Theory and Research in Social Education, 17(1), 7-32.
23.
PerkinsD.N.AllenR.&Hefner, J. (1983). Difficulties in every day reasoning. In MaxwellW. (Ed) . Thinking: The expanding frontier, (pp. 177-189). Philadelphia: Franklin Institute.
24.
RossiJ. A. (1995). In-depth study in an issucs-centcred social studies classroom. Theory and Research in Social Education, 23(2), 87-120.
25.
RossiJ. A. & PaceC.M. (1998). Issues centered instruction with low achieving high school students: The dilemmas of two teachers. Theory and Research in Social Education, 26(3), 380-409.
26.
SayeJ.W. (1998). Technology in the classroom: The role of dispositions in teacher gatekeeping. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 13(3), 210- 234.
27.
SayeJ.W. & BrushT. (1999). Student engagement with social issues in a multimedia-supported learning environment. Theory and Research in Social Education, 27(4), 472-504.
28.
SayeJ.W. & BrushT. (2000). Implementation and evaluation of a student- centered learning unit: A case study. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(3), 79-100.
29.
SayeJ.W. & BrushT. (2001). Scaffolding problem-centered teaching in traditional social studies classrooms. Paper presented at the National Council for the Social Studies Conference, Washington, D.C.
30.
SayeJ.W. & BrushT. (2002). Scaffolding critical reasoning about history and social issues in multimedia-supported learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development.
31.
SayeJ.W. & BrushT. (2004). Promoting civic competence through problem- based history learning environments. In PatrickG. E. H. J. J. (Ed.), Civic Learning in Teacher Education (Vol. 3). Bloomington, Indiana: ERIC Clearinghouse for Social Studies/Social Science Education.
32.
SayeJ.W. & BrushT. (2004). Scaffolding problem-centered teaching in traditional social studies classrooms. Theory and Research in Social Education, 32(3).
33.
SayeJ.KohlmeierJ.BrushT.MitchellL.FarmerC. (2005) “Using mentoring to develop collaborative communities of inquiry-based practice.” Presentation at the National Council for the Social Studies, College and University Faculty Association annual conference, Kansas City, November16-17.
34.
ScheurmanG. (1998). From behaviorist to constructivist teaching. Social Education, 62(1). 6-9.
35.
ScheurmanG. & NewmanF.M. (1998). Authentic intellectual work in social studies: Putting performance before pedagogy. Social Education, 62 (January), 21-35.
36.
SchlechtyP. (1993). On the frontier of school reform with trailblazers, pioneers, and settlers. Journal of Staff Development, 14(4), 46-51.
37.
ShaverJ. P. (1996). The prospects for issues-centered education. In EvansR. W. & SaxeD. W. (Ed.), Handbook on teaching social issues. (pp. 380- 386). Washington, DC: NCSS.
38.
ShulmanL.S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4-14.
39.
StraussA. & CorbinJ. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
40.
WigginsG. (1993). Assessment to improve performance, not just monitor it: Assessment reform in the social sciences. Social Science Record. Fall, 5- 12.
41.
WilsonS.M. & WineburgS.S. (1988). Peering at history from different lenses: The role of disciplinary perspectives in the teaching of American history. Teacher’s College Record30, 729-769.
42.
WindschitlM. (2002). Framing constructivism in practice as negotiation of dilemmas: An analysis of the conceptual, pedagogical, cultural, and political challenges facing teachers. Review of Educational Research, 72(2), 131-175.
43.
WineburgS.S. & WilsonS.M. (1991). Subject-matter knowledge in the teaching of history. Advances in Research on Teaching, Vol. 2, 305-347.
44.
YeagerE.A.Davis& O.L., J. (1995). Between campus and classroom: Secondary student teachers thinking about historical texts. Journal of Research and Development in Education29(1), 1-8.
